When faced with a powerful, threatening argument to a troubled paradigm, those in denial will first ignore. If this does not work, they will ridicule. And it this does not work, they will shout and even use hateful talk.

“You just don’t get it,” Jeff Skilling would tell Enron’s detractors. Ken Lay, in the middle of his company’s implosion, likened short sellers and media critics to ‘terrorists’ (his last speech to employees was a few months after 9/11). The Enron duo wanted an undeserved peace. They were really saying: “Stop the criticism. Just believe the shared narrative, and we will all be better off.” Enron, indeed, was a postmodern corporation.

Enter the Shared Narrative of catastrophic global warming. The data is going the other way, the public has all but turned off the alarm, and the climate lobby has increased their shrillness. The scholars’ hope for midcourse correction seems all but lost, given all the emotional (and financial) investment in a failing paradigm.

Romm on the Term ‘Denier’

Consider Joe Romm who in a moment of moderation (he is very emotional on the subject) once tried to distance himself from the ‘denier’ screed against critics of climate alarmism. Two years ago in a post titled “Climate Science Disinformers are Nothing like Holocaust Deniers,” he wrote:

Since I lost many relatives in the Holocaust, I understand all too well the unique nature of that catastrophe. The Holocaust is not an analogue to global warming, which is an utterly different kind of catastrophe, and, obviously, one whose worst impacts are yet to come.

But forget that! In “What Is The Difference Between A Psychic And A Climate Science Denier” (March 25, 2014), Romm combined both ridicule and name calling:

I know what the similarities are between psychics and deniers. They both use unscientific methods, generally make stuff up with no evidence to support their views, and have consistently been debunked when scrutinized.

What is the difference between a psychic and a climate science denier? In fairness, psychics sometimes guess the right answer.

Romm on ‘Alarmism’

Romm is a master of the half-truth at the expense of consistency and scholarship. The MIT Ph.D will do just about anything to score instant points, veracity aside. And he is not above pretending to be a voice of reason and moderation, not a serial exaggerator. “This notion that the environmental movement — or any other major play in the media landscape — is pushing non-stop apocalyptic messages like a broken record is one I debunked,” he once said.

But consider this Earth Day post from Dr. Doom last month. “With 7 billion people going to 9 billion, much of the environment is unsavable,” Romm stated. Without fundamental change, he continues:

the relatively stable environment and climate that made modern human civilization possible will be ruined, probably for hundreds of years … with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe. And that means misery for many if not most of the next 10 to 20 billion people to walk the planet.

Romm has been touting an apocalyptic climate message for years, such as this in 2012: CONCLUSION: Unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases threaten multiple catastrophes, any one of which justifies action. Together, they represent the gravest threat to humanity imaginable” and“the alarmists have ‘won the day’ scientifically.”

Confused? Even dizzy? It is not your fault. The alarmists’ alarmist Joe Romm is trying to soften a bit to have it both ways. But if Obama is a new oilman, just about anything is possible in this election season where the Hard Left is running to the middle on climate alarmism and energy policy.

Conclusion

There are multiple examples of failed prognostications about doom and gloom with population, food supply, natural resources, mineral resources, global cooling, and global warming. The alarmists even decry alarm from time to time as their message backfires.

It is all over but the shouting–however long the shouting phase lasts. There are real problems competing with the Scientist-Kings’ hypothetical ones.

6 Comments

I have previously noted what I refer to as “Romm’s Law”: He/she who first uses the terms “denier”, “anti-science”, “climate zombies” and their derivatives loses the argument. (Google “Godwin’s Law” for context.)

“Dr. Doom” has a contender for that “honorary” title…one well known to readers here:
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun”: Paul Ehrlich.